Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Denis Warburton Date: Jan 26, 2004 12:31pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Attn Administrators: Ufolawyer's inappropriate reviews

In regards to the Terms Of Service (http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php):
"Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only."

I would not call ufolawyer's 'reviews' scholarly or researched, nor do they further those aims. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are not part of the collection: all reviews are, at best, mere annotations to the actual collection.

The wholesale falsifications present in ufolawyer's 'reviews':
* Undermine the scholarly and responsible aims of the archive
* Undermine the integrity of the archive as a whole
and
* Precludes, as jack2 has pointed out, what the entire point of a review is: to give a factual account of the contents of a film in order to aid those who are considering downloading / viewing it.

Again, from the Terms Of Service:
"In using the Archive's site, Collections, and/or services, you further agree...
(b) not to act in any way that might give rise to civil or criminal liability...
(g) not to harass, threaten, or otherwise annoy anyone, and (h) not to act in any way that might be harmful to minors, including, without limitation, transmitting or facilitating the transmission of child pornography..."

Now, re-read the 'review' for "Naturally - a Girl" and tell me that:
* Ufolawyer's 'review' does not annoy anyone.
* Ufolawyer's 'review' is not potentially harmful to minors.

Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot say with certainty that the above 'review' cannot be construed in some way as "child pornography."

However, speaking as a teacher who not only highly values the contents of the archive, but also uses portions of the collection as part of my curriculum, this type of irresponsible behavior cannot persist. If it does, my fear is that schools may eventually be denied this otherwise incredibly educational resource. Why? Simply, if this type of irresponsible behavior is allowed to persist, archive.org could become unavailable - via Surf Control or other similar mechanism - at the schools that could otherwise make the best use of it.

There is very little point in having such a wonderful online resource if it is BLOCKED on a widespread basis.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Steve Nordby Date: Jan 27, 2004 11:19am
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Attn Administrators: Ufolawyer's inappropriate reviews

Denis, you may not be a lawyer, but I believe you have found the grounds for removing ufolawyer and his reviews, so it remains only for the archive to do so.